"A [preacher] who does not love art, poetry, music and nature can be dangerous. Blindness and deafness toward the beautiful are not incidental; they are necessarily reflected in his [preaching]." — BXVI

That we may be children of our heavenly Father, we must love our enemies, pray for them, especially those who persecute us. If there's a teaching in scripture that is more contrary to our animal instinct for self-preservation than this one, I'm not sure what it is. Loving family and friends comes easily. We can even manage to love God and ourselves without too much difficulty. But loving and praying for those who would see us destroyed is not only contrary to our survival it is downright suicidal. If our enemies defeat us b/c they are stronger, smarter, and more numerous, well, that's unfortunate for us but we can at least grasp the idea that we lost b/c our enemies were stronger, smarter, and more numerous. What is beyond comprehension is the idea that we would lose b/c we were too busy loving and praying to fight with all our strength, all our smarts, and all our numbers! That's not a battle, it's a retreat, a surrender. And it's suicide. Jesus must be winking at the disciples when he teaches them to love and pray for their enemies. He must've spoken this nonsense in a sarcastic tone. As strange as it might be to hear: no, he's deadly serious and there was no winking. We defeat our enemies by wielding a weapon called Truth. “[The Father] makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.” God loves those who hate us. And we must be perfect as He is perfect.

If we will be the children of our heavenly Father, we must be perfect as He is perfect. God is perfect in His love. He is Love. Love is Who He is and What He does. In every thought we think, every word we speak, and every deed we do, we too must be thinkers, speakers, and doers of love. If we pick and choose whom to love, sort through the options and select this one or that to love but not that one or this one, then we do not love as God loves. The sun shines on both the good and the bad; the rain falls on our friends and our enemies. Jesus asks us, “. . . if you love those who love you, what compensation will you have? Do not [traitors] do the same? And if you greet your brothers and sisters only, what is unusual about that?” In other words, how does loving only those who love you make you a child of the Father? What truth are you living when you only pray for those who pray for you? “Do not the pagans do the same?” Why imitate those who would see us destroyed? Yes, we might die if we love them, but it would not be by suicide.

The key to understanding this difficult teaching is to understand that Jesus is pointing us to our lives beyond this one. Though our mortal lives are immensely important, they are not ultimately important; that is, in the Father's plan for our salvation, our immortal lives, it is more important that we practice love than it is to merely survive. It is essential to our eternal survival that we practice the love He gives us by loving those He Himself loves. Our enemies hate us. We can fight them with our own hatred, and we might even mortally defeat them. But in fighting them with hatred, we are immortally defeated. We become our own enemy, haters of self and God. Jesus understands our natural instinct for survival, but he pushes us to think and feel beyond the limits of this mortal life and live in the perfection of his Father's love right now. We trust in the loving-goodness of our God. And this is our fundamental strength, our deadliest weapon against the hatred of our enemies. If we bombard them with prayer, then both we and they win the battle against our mutual enemy—Sin and the death it brings.

01 March 2012

A couple of HA readers have written to ask me to comment on the recent controversy about the Maryland priest who denied communion to a self-identified lesbian at her mother's funeral.

Fr. Marcel Guarnizo's superiors in the archdiocese have apologized to the woman, Barbara Johnson, and she's made a national media tour trashing the priest and demanding that he be suspended from ministry. She fervently claims that she is not trying to make a political point or subject the Church to ridicule. Given the media circus she's stirred up and her ridiculous demands, that's hard to believe. She has also accused the priest of "bringing his politics" into the Church, an accusation that tells me she knows little about the faith she claims to profess. And, of course, the media are playing this up from its usual left-liberal, anti-Catholic ideological biases.

IF--and that's a huge IF--we have the whole story, then I would have to say that the woman should not have been denied communion. I would never deny anyone communion w/o first talking to them privately. And even then I would need to consult the bishop. Though I often fail, I always try to presume the presence of grace.

Many supporting the priest's actions cite canon law and the obligation of priests to "protect the sacrament." The requirements of canon law on this issue are hotly contested, but I do think it's clear that anyone denied communion must be obstinately, gravely sinful and their sin must create a public scandal. Whether or not this woman fits the bill is doubtful. And that's sufficient in my mind to err on the side of giving her communion. If she were a parishioner, I'd ask to meet with her and discuss the Church's teaching on same-sex relationships and the necessity of being properly disposed to receive communion. If she persisted in the relationship and still came forward for communion, a conversation with the bishop would follow.

I think the Good Father made a snap decision in good conscience. There's no reason to believe that he was being mean-spirited or uncharitable. In fact, evidence demonstrates that he is anything but mean-spirited and uncharitable. He's an excellent pastor by all accounts and his superiors in the archdiocese threw him under the bus in order to short-circuit any unpleasant controversy with the gay community. The apology issued by the archdiocese makes no mention of the Church's teaching on same-sex relationships or the necessity of being properly disposed to receive communion.

If anything good can come out of this mess, let it be this: pastors DO NOT allow eulogies at funeral Masses. The bishops have discouraged them precisely b/c individuals often use them to tell inappropriate stories about the deceased; take cheap pot shots at the Church; ridicule the faith in general; and to try and settle old family feuds. I always tell the deceased's family that stories can be told at the grave site but not during the Mass.

Recently, I wandered out of the priory to search for some summer clothes. With an address and a printed Google map in hand, I headed out west toward Clearview Parkway to a men's clothing store that caters to those of us who require a bit more yardage in our wardrobe; that's to say this particular store has what I call a “Deep and Wide” department. While trying to find this store, I discovered that following a Google map of New Orleans is a lot like looking for pirate treasure using map on the back of a Captain Crunch cereal box. Less than useless. For example, I passed the store and needed to turn around. Easy. Just make a left turn, right? Wrong. The road was being repaired and drivers we directed by a large sign to make a complicated detour. So, I made the detour. But I couldn't get back on the parkway b/c another sign prohibited left turns. So, I drove a little further to make the turn. No dice. Looming ahead was the Hughey Long Bridge. I had to turn left at the next opportunity or go over the bridge. This opportunity arrived and proved worthy of New Orleans traffic. Another large sign directed traffic to turn left for a detour and another smaller sign just underneath it read, “No left turns.” I can now say that I've driven over the Hughey Long Bridge! The lesson here is: roads signs are useful only if they make sense, and in making sense of them, it helps to know the history of the place.

When Jesus tells the crowd that no other sign than the sign of Jonah will be given them, they know which sign he's talking about even if they're bit confused about how to read it. What the crowd would prefer is an unambiguous sign of Jesus' divine power. Call down some angels. Turn a big rock into gold. Change the desert into an oasis. A bold, dramatic sign; something obviously and undeniably divine. Jesus refuses to do this b/c he sees their clamoring for divine signs as a sign of their evil intent, a sign that they are not yet ready to trust in the Word of their Father. What good is a sign if the one reading it doesn't understand its meaning? What good is a sign if the one reading it isn't ready to follow its direction? Jesus knows that a heart needing proof is not a heart eager to trust. Rather than give the crowd a useless sign, he tells them—in effect—to wait and watch. Their much-requested sign was on its way: he would be killed and three days later he would rise from his tomb. Only those eager to trust in his Word would correctly read this sign of Jonah.

We know Jonah's story and we know that Jesus was killed and rose from his tomb. Still, like the evil generation that Jesus' refuses to coddle, we too clamor for signs. Living in this world of trials and temptations will send even the most faithful among us to our knees begging God for a clearer sign of His presence, a more tangible hint of His loving-care. We could see this as a weakness, a moment of betrayal; or, we could see it for what it really is: a chance to learn how to read the signs of His love a little more clearly. Faith is a powerful clarifying agent, a mighty force that draws sharp distinctions and provides trustworthy direction. Signs of God's love flood our daily lives, overwhelming any and all attempts by the Enemy to confuse and discourage us. The Lenten desert is the perfect time and place for us to beg God to strengthen our faith so that His signs become glaring neon and unmistakable. Start by giving Him thanks for His signs, especially when you don't see them clearly. Gratitude magnifies the smallest blessing into the brightest sign.

27 February 2012

Cardinal George of Chicago asks whether or not the Church will be forced to sacrifice her charitable institutions in the next few years. I believe that this is the ultimate goal of the B.O. administration. Mammon doesn't like competition. . .and right now, the Church is the only force standing in the way of Mammon's near total control of our lives.

Why does a governmental administrative decision now mean the end of institutions that have been built up over several generations from small donations, often from immigrants, and through the services of religious women and men and others who wanted to be part of the church’s mission in healing and education? Catholic hospitals, universities and social services have an institutional conscience, a conscience shaped by Catholic moral and social teaching. The HHS regulations now before our society will make it impossible for Catholic institutions to follow their conscience.

[. . .]

What will happen if the HHS regulations are not rescinded? A Catholic institution, so far as I can see right now, will have one of four choices: 1) secularize itself, breaking its connection to the church, her moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop. This is a form of theft. It means the church will not be permitted to have an institutional voice in public life. 2) Pay exorbitant annual fines to avoid paying for insurance policies that cover abortifacient drugs, artificial contraception and sterilization. This is not economically sustainable. 3) Sell the institution to a non-Catholic group or to a local government. 4) Close down.

[. . .]

Practically, we’re told that the majority of Catholics use artificial contraception. There are properly medical reasons, in some circumstances, for the use of contraceptive pills, as everyone knows. But even if contraceptives were used by a majority of couples only and exclusively to suppress a possible pregnancy, behavior doesn’t determine morality. If it can be shown that a majority of Catholic students cheat on their exams, it is still wrong to cheat on exams. Trimming morality to how we behave guts the Gospel call to conversion of life and rejection of sin.

[. . .]

The provision of health care should not demand “giving up” religious liberty. Liberty of religion is more than freedom of worship. Freedom of worship was guaranteed in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union. You could go to church, if you could find one. The church, however, could do nothing except conduct religious rites in places of worship-no schools, religious publications, health care institutions, organized charity, ministry for justice and the works of mercy that flow naturally from a living faith. All of these were co-opted by the government. We fought a long cold war to defeat that vision of society.

[. . .]

Kudos to the Good Cardinal for this article!

The most distressing part of this scandal is speed and eagerness with which some Catholics--including whole institutions and religious orders--have raced to the emperor's temples to toss their handful of incense on the altars' braziers.

In the name of serving the poor (with tax dollars), these Catholics have sacrificed (quite literally) the lives of the children they claim to serve. In their utilitarian moral calculus, the loss of our religious liberty and the funding of mortal sin are acceptable prices for us to pay for universal health care (assuming that's what ObamaCare is giving us).

We've entered the Lenten desert with Christ and for forty days the Enemy will aggressively attack us, tempting us to betray our Lord and his Church. Like Christ in the desert, the Enemy will tempt us to turn away from God and embrace the kingdom of this world. In exchange for betraying the faith, we are promised the praise of our Social Betters; political influence and prestige; access to the public treasury and the use of public property; the approval of those who would otherwise cast stones and see us driven from the public square; and the promise to leave us alone to worship as we like within the walls of our churches. The deadliest traps must be set with the sweetest bait. What the Enemy knows and we ought to know is that so long as we agree that these grants of privilege are his to give, they are also his to revoke. The trap currently awaiting the Church has been set using the Lord's own words from today's gospel, “Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.” To the Church in the Lenten desert circa 2012, the Enemy says, “If you would serve the least of His, you must serve me first.”

For 20 centuries, Christians have embraced teaching of Matthew 25, building, staffing, and maintaining hospitals, orphanages, universities, hospices, travelers' way stations, national and international charitable institutions totaling billions of dollars annually in free food, medical care, housing, and education. The Catholic Church is the single largest private provider of relief from the ravages of poverty, disease, and ignorance in the world. In fact, without the Church's determination to follow the teachings of Christ, there would be no universities, no hospitals, no orphanages, no scientific institutions; there would no concept of universal human rights; no understanding of individual freedom; no articulation or defense of human dignity. Without the Church's determination to follow the teachings of Christ, the west would likely still practice slavery, infanticide, gladiatorial games, constant tribal warfare, and the subjugation of women and children under the absolute authority of their male relatives. It is because the Church has embraced the least of God's children that we as a culture are civilized at all. Without a grounding in the teachings of Christ, none of what we have achieved will stand against the temptations of the Enemy, and nothing he offers us is worth the damnation of a single soul.

What every Christian must keep in sharp focus during these tempting times is that we serve the least of God's children out of love and for the greater glory of God. The problems inherent in a fallen world are with us until Christ comes again. Nothing we do will ever end hunger or disease or poverty or ignorance. That's not our goal. Our goal is to love and serve God and one another: the poor, the oppressed, the sick, the dying, and the imprisoned, to love and serve them for no other reason than that God loves them. When we love and serve the least of His, we praise His glory and show the power of His mercy for sinners. We are not charged with the duty of building a just world. We are vowed to live in the world as a just people. We are not charged with the duty of bringing peace to the world. We are vowed to live in the world as a peaceable people. Our duty is to live now as we would live in heaven—loving, serving, praising God by loving and serving those most of need of His care. We cannot do our duty to God and serve the Enemy at the same time. When tempted to do both, we must always choose God.